Log in

No account? Create an account
Andrey [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

(no subject) [Jul. 18th, 2019|09:01 pm]
Colbert makes fun of a republican representative who said what crosses my mind every time I hear the phrase "person of color":

Yes, I know, language. Usage. Metonymy, I guess? Semantic shifts. But still, the phrase for me is a never-ending source of bewilderment about how the society came to speak words that imply that strongly pigmented people have "color", and weakly pigmented people don’t.
link2 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jul. 18th, 2019|12:17 am]
Ah, the position that I object to nicely summarized in a tweet (retweeted by a developer):

This is an extroverted position that does not accept an individual focused on (bettering) themselves. It demands allegiance, engagement and partisanship. It is not satisfied with co-existence and demands a fight.
link4 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jul. 17th, 2019|11:55 pm]
Found a curious old reddit thread about why philosophers dislike Dawkins. One of the offered reasons was that he dumbs down philosophical arguments for existence of God. Having suggested that, one redditor goes on to present St Anselm’s ontological argument in a more favorable light than does Dawkins:

St. Anselm actually gave two ontological arguments he presented in the Proslogium, specifically in chapters 2 and 3. I'll explain the second version, which I think is easier to understand and more persuasive.

For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being you are, O Lord, our God.

I think this argument can be summarized like this:

Definition 1: God is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived.

Axiom 1: Necessary being, i.e. something that cannot be conceived as failing to exist, is greater than contingent being, i.e. something that can be conceived as failing to exist.

Premise 1: If God can be conceived as not existing, then we can conceive of something greater than God, following Axiom 1.

Premise 2: We cannot conceive of something greater than God, by definition 1.

Conclusion: God cannot be conceived as not existing, by modus tollens.

Now, obviously, I am not a philosopher and know nothing about the history of grappling with this argument, but:

Redditor’s summary seems to differ from the translation of Anselm insofar as its conclusion is about human psychology, whereas the ontological argument seems to be trying to say something about objective reality. It’s perfectly fine, and probably not very interesting, to argue that God cannot be conceived as nonexisting (although the immediate question — not sure whether philosophical or psychological — is whether anything can be conceived as nonexisting; whether the mere act of thinking about something by necessity puts it in some hypothetical plane where it is regarded as if it actually existed) — but the argument does not offer a link between our cognitive ability and something’s actual existence anywhere apart from our mind. This, I think, is what Dawkins and others who scoff at the ontological argument mean to say.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 17th, 2019|10:56 pm]

Corbyn, to May: Climate change. Why are you doing so poorly on climate change?
May, in reply: We are doing very well on climate change. And before you start lecturing us, what about racism in your party. (flourishes a newspaper) Labour is choke full of antisemites. Apologize!
Corbyn, in reply: We were the party that introduced anti-racism laws into legislation! And meanwhile, 60% of the Tory party think that islam is a threat to Western civilization. It’s you who are racists!

It is all so embarrassingly stupid! Modern society’s obsession with the words such as racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. with immediate moral outrage that they intend to produce, has degraded the intellectual level of public discourse.

The reason for talking about islam and courting muslims (in the 21st century, gah!), like the reason for seeking support of orthodox christians in Russia, is of course because they have become a significant political force. As someone from the audience says to Boris during the latest hustings: "[muslims] could be crucial for our next general elections, as muslim vote bank can swing over 72 parliamentary constituencies":

linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 16th, 2019|09:52 pm]
Saw in an ad for Grammarly how it doesn’t like myself in place of me:

and then amused myself by looking through numerous examples on Google Books, mostly from 18th and 19th century, of myself used in this syntactically discouraged position.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 16th, 2019|09:43 pm]
It’s amusing to see how the rhetoric in a similar vein to "you liberals, if you don’t like it here why don’t you piss off to your Israel (optionally: America)", still easily imaginable in Russia, makes the Western media go into a fit and cry "racism". I am almost sure I heard a couple of years ago people in the media say something to the effect of why don’t you go to Putin’s Russia then (optionally, to Venezuela), if you don’t like it here in the US; and nobody minded much.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 14th, 2019|05:23 pm]
Boris, bothering a bee in my bonnet:

"...also, not positive enough about our European friends, you know. It’s so sad that our kids don’t learn German or French anymore in a way that my generation did, let alone Spanish or Italian. We need to be encouraging exchanges, we need to be encouraging the teaching of European languages..."

link5 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Jul. 13th, 2019|07:26 pm]
Another new book on Russia: what a lucrative topic it has now become:

This one is written by a historian though, and, judging by a quick glance inside, looks decent.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 12th, 2019|11:21 pm]
Saw this retweeted. There’s this lady who wants to get hired, so she sends video pitches to companies (and then references those videos in her tweets). I’ve never seen such an approach before; so, intrigued, I took a glance at one or two of her videos. Turns out it’s just her reading out loud a traditional cover letter that she breaks into several slides. Perhaps unaware that written language works differently than spoken language, she uses long and occasionally complex sentences, over syntax of which she stumbles while reading. The language is full of meaningless marketese. The overall impression is embarrassingly boring, and the text is extremely forgettable. I would be surprised if this format works better than regular cover letters (which, of course, may not work at all).
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Jul. 11th, 2019|11:24 pm]
Boris shows his internalized classical education by pronouncing eviscerate with a classical Latin /k/ — /ɪvɪskəreɪt/ (at 36:47):

linkpost comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]